The Great (yawn) US Presidential Debates of 2004 (no spam)

CM · Post by CM » Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:57 pm

Kerry is Bush lite. There is definitely now way anybody could be in the pro-kerry campaign?

Paranitis · Post by **Paranitis** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:00 pm

Well, it's been known that pretty much every election the people tend to come out and vote more when there is a president they want OUT of office than one they want IN.

So like this campaign, people either want Bush for 4 more years, or they want him gone.

If Bush WINS this campaign then next time we would actually have to pay attention because we aren't voting someone out of office we are voting someone in.

If Kerry WINS this campaign then next time we will be voting whether or not to keep Kerry or get rid of him.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:57 am

Heh, Heh.

I just read this on another site I like to visit:

Salon.com reports that Bush had a radio receiver taped to his back during the first debate so he could receive messages via a tiny hearing-aid-like device in his ear. They back this up with a photo. I have no way of verifying the story, but the Commission on Presidential Debates has verified that one of the rules of engagement the Bush campaign insisted on was no camera shots of the candidates from behind (which one of the pool cameras did anyway). This story is either investigative journalism at its best or wishful thinking. If you are not a Salon.com subscriber, you have to sign up for a free day pass to read the full story.

I haven't read the actual story, so this is third-hand information. I just get a kick out of this kind of unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable story. It reveals a wackier side of politics!

A story like this will probably never get the air time that the Swift Boat guys did (a lack of funding), but I consider both stories to be equally fanciful.

Opalescence · Post by **Opalescence** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:44 am

And yet even with the prompter, Bush sounded like a complete idiot.

Is it just me? Am I the only one who thought Bush sounded like a guy who was coached extensively but lost 90% of it under the lights? To me, his answers sounded kinda like this:

Moderator: Mr. President, more people have died in Iraq than in Pearl Harbor. The Iraqis hate your guts and now people are getting some pretty radical haircuts over there. If you remain President, what will you do?

Bush: Well, Kerry keeps flip-flopping on his issues. You can't flip-flop on your beliefs. And ... and ... and this isn't a war of wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. And ... and Kerry flip-flops ...

Moderator: New question. Mr. President, what are you going to do about the nukes in North Korea?

Bush: Kerry flip-flops! And this isn't some grand diversion. Did I mention that Kerry flip-flops? And that he said the war in Iraq was a grand diversion? Oh yeah and this isn't a war of wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.

Of course I'm exxagerating, but it's not too far off. Bush, instead of answering questions, spends his two hours trying unsuccessfully to make Kerry look bad. In debate, this is one of those "dirty tricks you can use when you know your argument's absolute garbage"; namely, attacking your opponent so you won't have to defend your indefensible position.

Now, B & K are back for round two: the domestic debate. Unfortunately, this limits Bush to only yelling, "He flip-flops!" since "grand diversion" and "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" no longer apply. I'm looking forward to see the lord of sleep awakened versus the broken record.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:08 am

Actually, for tonight's debate, all topics will be fair game. It is a townhall-style forum where the audience made up of uncommited voters will be able to ask the candidates any questions they want. Iraq is likely to come up several times, though I would like to hear them talk about more than just Iraq or the war on terror. The third debate is slated to cover only domestic issues.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:04 pm

[QUOTE=Gwalchmai]I just read this on another site I like to visit:

Quote:
Salon.com reports that Bush had a radio receiver taped to his back during the first debate so he could receive messages via a tiny hearing-aid-like device in his ear. They back this up with a photo. I have no way of verifying the story, but the Commission on Presidential Debates has verified that one of the rules of engagement the Bush campaign insisted on was no camera shots of the candidates from behind (which one of the pool cameras did anyway). This story is either investigative journalism at its best or wishful thinking. If you are not a Salon.com subscriber, you have to sign up for a free day pass to read the full story.

I haven't read the actual story, so this is third-hand information. I just get a kick out of this kind of unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable story. It reveals a wackier side of politics!

A story like this will probably never get the air time that the Swift Boat guys did (a lack of funding), but I consider both stories to be equally fanciful.

[/QUOTE]
The trouble with third-hand information is that it's usually wrong.

The quote, "Salon.com reports that Bush had a radio receiver taped to his back during the first debate so he could receive messages via a tiny hearing-aid-like device in his ear. They back this up with a photo," is a complete misreading of what the article in Salon actually says. What Salon actually reports is that there are lots of people on the internet asking the question, "Was Bush wired during the debate?" Salon presents some of the evidence that other people have come up with, but at no point in the article does the author swear that the rumors are true. The author did make some attempt to determine whether Bush really could have been wired, but the story is more about what some people think than what actually happened during the debate. But given the fact that the internet is teaching people all sorts of bad habits, I guess I can see how a sloppy reader might misinterpret that.

Also, if you want to read the article, which is at http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/ ... index.html, you don't need to "sign up for a day pass"; all you need to do is click on a link to watch a 15-second commercial, which will put a cookie on your computer, and then you can read all of Salon's articles for the rest of the day. Lots of people say, "You need to 'sign up' to get a day pass at Salon," but that's not accurate at all. If you go to the Salon.com homepage, you can see the titles of all of the current articles, and if you click on the links, you can read the first couple of paragraphs of each article. That way, you can decide whether it's worth 15 seconds of your time to watch a commercial to get a day pass. Just be aware that you need to have cookies enabled and you can't have *.ultramercial.com on your list of Restricted Sites (under Internet Explorer Security settings), or else the commercial won't work.

If you choose to read other articles at Salon, which presents itself as an alternative to the mainstream press, much like a lot of weekly papers in big cities, be aware that, true to its "alternative" nature, it contains a lot of "adult" language and subject matter. But don't expect to be teased or thrilled by it; if you're looking for that kind of entertainment, you'll probably be bored.

If you enjoy liberal political news, then you'll probably enjoy Salon, but if you enjoy Fox News [sic], then you'll probably hate Salon.

As for the subject at hand, I don't know if it matters whether Bush was really wired at the debate. It should be obvious by now that he doesn't think for himself, so it doesn't really matter whether his answers were "canned" or whispered into his ear in real-time. If you vote for Bush, then in effect, you're voting for his team of advisors. If you like **** Cheney and other charter members of the Project for a New American Century, then maybe you should vote for Bush/Cheney'04.

Aside from the bulge on his back, the most compelling evidence that Bush was listening to someone on a wire was when he blurted out "Let me finish" when nobody inside the debate hall was trying to stop him or interrupt him. My own feeling is that if he was indeed wearing a wire, it probably hurt his performance more than it helped him. His tendency to lock up made him look clueless and confused, and he was unable to control his body language, and any distractions caused by a wire would only have made things worse.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 3:46 pm

[QUOTE=Gwalchmai]Actually, for tonight's debate, all topics will be fair game. It is a townhall-style forum where the audience made up of uncommited voters will be able to ask the candidates any questions they want. [/QUOTE]

But how is the audience selected? I guess it's quite difficult to be allowed to participate? Also, I read at BBC that the questions are screened beforehand, which makes this "debate" no different from first in terms of level of artificiality. Nothing new really seems to come out of these debates, so how come they affect the American people? (Or don't they? I saw polls after the first TV-debate that showed increased support for Kerry). What are the critera people care about?

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:39 pm

A story this morning on National Public Radio addressed this question. My reception was not great, but I understood that Gallup (the pollster) chose the 100 participants. They were unable to find people who were truly undecided (not surprising given the polemic environment) and chose people where would be considered 'soft' supporters of Bush or Kerry. The questions are not screened beforehand, nor are the questions pre-written for the audience. There will be a moderator on hand. The moderator will be able to ask follow-up questions.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:51 pm

[QUOTE=C Elegans]What are the critera people care about?[/QUOTE]

My outlook.

(From another site I posted at)

I'm Pro-Choice. (Wife agrees)
I'm for the Enforcement of the gun laws we already have. (Wife doesn't care)
I'm for Gay Marriage. (Wife agrees)
I'm for a Leveling off of Military spending. (Wife doesn't care)
I'm for the Death Penalty. (Wife disagrees)

I don't support making Social Secruity private. (I could move on this one if I saw a plan that I believed could work) (Wife agrees)
I don't support talks with North Korea. (Wife agrees)
I don't support religion in schools. (Wife disagrees)
I don't support the Kyoto Treaty. (Wife doesn't care)

From looking at this I believe you could say I'm stuck between parties.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:53 pm

Good, that makes the debate much more interesting and valuable for undecided voters. I'm looking forward to a report.

I wonder why BBC wrote the questions were screened, they are usually reliable...must check into this later.

Sigh, I have been trying to convince my American colleagues to vote, but one of them totally refuses. We've had a couple of lunch discussions, but he is adamant that he is not going to vote since he is disgusted by both parties, dislike both Kerry and Bush and think the whole American political system is erranous anyway.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 5:20 pm

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Sigh, I have been trying to convince my American colleagues to vote, but one of them totally refuses. We've had a couple of lunch discussions, but he is adamant that he is not going to vote since he is disgusted by both parties, dislike both Kerry and Bush and think the whole American political system is erroneous anyway.[/QUOTE]Wow. Good luck with your friend. I am bothered by this sort of attitude, even though it is relatively common. My feeling, my opinion, is that this is nothing but a cop-out. Of course the major parties are not going to speak to your friend's issues if he never exercises his right to vote and has his voice heard. It was terrible that Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000, but it was even more terrible that more people didn't vote at all than voted for any one candidate!

Yes, the American political system could be better, but as Fable said in another thread, all political systems worldwide could stand some improvement. Avoidance is not a good long-term answer. No candidate is ever going to be perfect. Even though I (currently) support the Democrats and therefore support John Kerry, there are many things that I wish he would do differently. But I'm not running. He is.

I understand that Ruch Limbaugh (I really don't like him at all) never voted until he was in his mid-40s....

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:18 pm

[QUOTE=Gwalchmai]A story this morning on National Public Radio addressed this question. My reception was not great, but I understood that Gallup (the pollster) chose the 100 participants. They were unable to find people who were truly undecided (not surprising given the polemic environment) and chose people where would be considered 'soft' supporters of Bush or Kerry. The questions are not screened beforehand, nor are the questions pre-written for the audience. There will be a moderator on hand. The moderator will be able to ask follow-up questions.[/QUOTE]

Yet nobody is answering any questions. Instead, they're simply using the questions provided to lauch into set speeches they almost certainly were coached upon long before they arrived. This isn't a debate. It's simply tap dancing.

I've listened for about fifteen minutes. I'm turning it off. This is a charade.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:04 pm

I listened to National Public Radio's "analysis," afterwards, and found myself thinking I'd fallen into the the rabbit hole and just sat down to tea with the Mad Hatter and the March Hare. This group of serious journalists discussed anything but substance--they were concerned with Bush's presentation, and spoke glowingly about how he was repeating sections of his stump speeches given at town meetings throughout the country. Over and over the same sentiment was aired.

In other words, the fact that he didn't say anything answering questions, and did repeat speech tidbits he'd uttered elsewhere, was good; and since he looked forceful, hey--who needs anything more in a president?

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:29 pm

[QUOTE=fable]I listened to National Public Radio's "analysis," afterwards, and found myself thinking I'd fallen into the the rabbit hole and just sat down to tea with the Mad Hatter and the March Hare. This group of serious journalists discussed anything but substance--[/QUOTE]

You can't expect substance from a politician.

As much as I shouldn't have, I did watch some of the "debate" (*Hey I can merge the real meaning*). Bush improved from his last attempt.< LMAO

Cheney couldn't scream at him through a hidden reciever this time, giving George a break (Not spooking him). Sadly I only heard the same thing from both.

Winner unknown, I still consider the people of the US the real loser though.

InfiniteNature · Post by **InfiniteNature** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:53 pm

I think as to who won, it was a draw.

Kerry didn't attack enough on Bush's weaknesses, of which there were several.

Nor that Bush really didn't answer the questions he was asked, JUST said "insert Hillbilly voice here" "I defend against terrorists, I have moral rectitude, I am straightfaced, I always tell the truth and the Truth is me. Hell I'm the next best thing to God, Halleluah."

Kerry yes kinda of skimmed over some issues, just kept saying he had a plan.

I mean how can you lose to such a blatantly obtuse and incompetent person.

Okay okay I understand you want not to gloss over your previous support of some his policies, I understand you want to appear centrist, but Geez this guy screwed up Big time so many times, and he's running neck and neck just by the sheer spin.

I mean would it be to much to ask to attack on the core of the matter, keep Bush running, keep attacking, I know you don't have much of a personality nor charisma, nor much of strength, but he's worse of then you. I mean most people aren't voting for you because we like you, but because we realize what a incompetent smuck we voted into office.

I mean I saw what kind of damage, this spoiled rich white boy did in the four years he was in office, think what he could do if he gets another term. Like I said this is the man who can by pushing one button can destroy the world in ten minutes give or take, and you push someone this nuts into the position, all because of some moral rectitude dogma, which nobody really bothers to question him on, just takes it as given what he says is true.

Geez, aren't the days of the pharoahs supposed to be gone, or the times of divinely inspired leadership; are people really so stupid as to believe such Bull.

I mean put aside the religion issue, you believe what you want to believe, do you really think God plays favorites?

Ah well vent over.

I watched the full debate, to my everlasting disgust, starting to think that maybe we should just sterilize the all the stupid people. I mean think about the reason why the world is the way it is, and realize that it's because we allow stupid people to breed and that it seems like we even elect them to rule, even if they're incompetent.

Got a place in Maine, now, when the idiotas really screw up, I'm running for it, think it might be far enough way, but then again on further thought only Mars'd be far enough away, I'm sure the dumbdumbs can't reach there yet.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:29 am

I didn't sit through the whole thing - I don't find American medicare policies of much interest - but the phrases unique threat, wrong place wrong time wrong war, and terror(ist/ism) seemed to dominate the foreign policy part of the debate. As expected. Here is a transcript of the debate, for anyone interested.

For the record, can someone more versed in USian politics tell me why third party canditates weren't present? I would have found Cobb's or Badnarik's views refreshing, even for the mere reason that they don't actually have to worry about losing votes and can thus (more) freely speak their minds.

Or am I being overly naive here?

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Oct 09, 2004 7:21 am

For the record, can someone more versed in USian politics tell me why third party canditates weren't present? I would have found Cobb's or Badnarik's views refreshing, even for the mere reason that they don't actually have to worry about losing votes and can thus (more) freely speak their minds.

We've discussed this under another thread recently, but to summarize: because of its winner-take-all mentality, American politics has always tended to encourage the development of two large parties--much as in the British system, from which it was drawn. Most people don't vote for any other party on state-wide or national level, because their vote simply won't count if it's cast elsewhere. In other words, you can hit all the voting levers you want for the Greens, the Libertarians or anyone else, then extoll the virtues of democracy; you're just fooling yourself. It's a two-party system on any level of power outside the local one; and to the extent that the government writes the laws controlling the processes of election, it's a self-perpetuating one.

This is acknowledged quietly, even as the opposite is trumpeted in the national mythology. That's why you won't find minor party candidates appearing in nationally televised debates: because they have no chance of winning, and the media doesn't want to waste time on them or their ideas unless they furnish some human interest angle that will bring in more readers/viewers. Needless to say, the two major parties agree strongly.

The viability of smaller parties and what they have to say will never matter in the US unless proportional representation is ever introduced, and governments become coalitions that fall based on legislative votes of no confidence. Until these happen, the American right to form and/or vote for your own political party is (to my way of thinking) identical to the right to masturbate: it gives you a great feeling, but doesn't interest or affect anybody else.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:26 pm

Okay, third debate. Again, at times, it sounds as though Bush is wired for comments. Whenever a serious question comes up that requires more than a stump speech, he stumbles, provides part of an answer, then suddenly changes course and rushes ahead on a different point, almost as though he were receiving feedback. Of course, it could just be him.

Anybody else listening to this double litany of pat answers that provide no solutions?

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:49 pm

[QUOTE=fable]Okay, third debate. Again, at times, it sounds as though Bush is wired for comments. Whenever a serious question comes up that requires more than a stump speech, he stumbles, provides part of an answer, then suddenly changes course and rushes ahead on a different point, almost as though he were receiving feedback. Of course, it could just be him.

Anybody else listening to this double litany of pat answers that provide no solutions?[/QUOTE]

I only caught parts, (other things ..like taking out the trash and cutting trees take most of my time nowadays) but the parts I caught had Bush stumbling. I think it's just his way. I still feel the debates were like a Pro Fight, First match to Kerry, Bush in the rematch and the rumble in Arizona to finish up. I didn't see enough of the rumble to be sure, but I will predict Kerry to have won. (I predict this because I see the media pumping the debates for viewers, can't have the match over after the second match.)

The part I did see was Kerry talking about Health Care and his plan, which after seeing the people around my area without coverage during Ivan, kind of makes me lean towards his plan...even though I understand it will cost a lot. (Not based on Bush, based on my understanding of how things work in this country. Something as massive as this will cost.) Somethings are worth the cost, I just hope it can be regulated better than most government plans.

(Yes this would be my biggest worry)

Paranitis · Post by **Paranitis** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:59 pm

The way I see it..

Debate 1: Kerry over Bush
Vice-Debate: Cheney over Edwards
Debate 2: Kerry over Bush
Debate 3: Kerry over Bush

Bush always does SOMETHING to throw the victory to Kerry for me.

Like in the first debate, he sounded like a whining child.

2nd debate he didn't want to follow the rules of the debate and wanted to interrupt the moderator constantly.

This debate..it is OKAY to poke fun at yourself every once in awhile..but at the end Bush just wouldn't stop making fun of himself..you can only go to far before you actually start looking like a complete jackass. And Kerry's joke was actually a thinkin man's joke, which seemed to confuse Bush.